--- Comment #3 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-20 15:45
---
The assert that fails is checking whether an instruction was correctly
disconnected from the insn stream (at its original location) to be inserted on
the scheduling boundary by adjusting PREV_INSN/NEXT_INSN links
--- Comment #4 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-20 15:47
---
Created an attachment (id=17153)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17153action=view)
proposed patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38857
--- Comment #7 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-22 12:19
---
(In reply to comment #6)
-static bool code_motion_path_driver (insn_t, av_set_t, ilist_t,
- cmpd_local_params_p, void *);
+static int code_motion_path_driver (insn_t
--- Comment #9 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-29 10:53
---
Subject: Bug 38857
Author: amonakov
Date: Thu Jan 29 10:53:15 2009
New Revision: 143753
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=143753
Log:
2009-01-29 Andrey Belevantsev a...@ispras.ru
--- Comment #10 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-29 10:55
---
Fixed with above commit.
--
amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.4.0 4.5.0
Known to work||4.3.2
--- Comment #2 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-17 21:55
---
I attempted to investigate the miscompilation on the 4.4 branch.
The problem seems to appear in dse2 pass. Basically, after encountering
313 dx:DI=ax:DI+0x4
187 {[di:DI+dx:DI]=[di:DI+dx:DI]0x1;clobber
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: driver
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39851
--- Comment #4 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-25 11:48
---
Tobias,
Please fix the testcase before committing to trunk, like this ('return 0' is
needed to ensure the test does not fail when compiled correctly; 'noclone' to
ensure that foo is not specialized for n=0
--- Comment #2 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-04 18:00
---
(In reply to comment #0)
Janis,
Thank you for the testcase. This bug and PR42249 are fixed by Andrey's old
patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-09/msg01930.html
The patch in that message still
--
amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot
--
amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #3 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-07 18:23
---
Also not reproducible on x86_64-ppc64 cross.
While codegen differences on ppc/ppc64/x86_64 cross are certainly surprising,
in the end this testcase most likely indicates a bug in sel-sched.
--
amonakov at gcc
--- Comment #4 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-08 11:55
---
(In reply to comment #3)
Also not reproducible on x86_64-ppc64 cross.
While codegen differences on ppc/ppc64/x86_64 cross are certainly surprising,
in the end this testcase most likely indicates a bug in sel
--- Comment #5 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-28 14:23
---
(In reply to comment #4)
Re. comment #3 - do you have an example of when/how this can happen? Perhaps
you can add it to the comment.
Here, we are scheduling a loop that looks like this:
+---+
| 4
--- Comment #2 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-28 17:45
---
(In reply to comment #1)
So, your pthread.h doesn't contain prototype for pthread_getaffinity_np, yet
libpthread.so.0 exports it? Otherwise:
Affected system declares those functions in /usr/include/nptl
--- Comment #7 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-11 15:04
---
Our previous patch (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-12/msg01215.html)
failed to correctly fix the problem, and the new testcase uncovers a flaw in
that implementation.
We 'forgot' to recompute topological
--- Comment #6 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-02 11:27
---
This patch also fixes miscompilation of vla1.f90 test on ia64 on sel-sched
branch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37447
--- Comment #10 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-14 13:41
---
Since Andrey has just committed ia64 changes from sel-sched branch to trunk,
the underlying problem is fixed and ICEs on original testcase and mentioned
regression tests are gone. Closing as fixed
--- Comment #12 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-16 17:31
---
Subject: Bug 37381
Author: amonakov
Date: Thu Oct 16 17:30:06 2008
New Revision: 141177
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141177
Log:
2008-10-16 Alexander Monakov [EMAIL PROTECTED
--- Comment #13 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-16 17:42
---
H.J., thanks for reminding. Closing again.
--
amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
gnu dot org
ReportedBy: amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41118
--- Comment #43 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-29 13:12
---
Checking original testcase times on x86_64 prescott with gentoo 4.2, 4.3 and
today's trunk:
2.960sg++-4.2.4 (GCC) 4.2.4 (Gentoo 4.2.4 p1.0)
2.916sg++-4.3.1 (Gentoo 4.3.1-r1 p1.1) 4.3.1
3.993sg++ (GCC
--- Comment #4 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-08 10:38
---
Scheduling of instructions dependent on speculative loads was implemented a
bit differently on sel-sched branch and on trunk (before the merge). Since
ia64.c changes were not checked in, a discrepancy appeared
--- Comment #4 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-16 15:12
---
A patch for this bug has been posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-09/msg01135.html
Running the testcase on similarly configured compiler shows 2.47 seconds spent
in scheduling2, out of 151.27 total
--- Comment #6 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-18 08:31
---
Subject: Bug 37499
Author: amonakov
Date: Thu Sep 18 08:29:48 2008
New Revision: 140445
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=140445
Log:
2008-09-18 Alexander Monakov [EMAIL PROTECTED
--- Comment #7 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-18 08:34
---
Fixed with above commit.
--
amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 10:29
---
Subject: Bug 42245
Author: amonakov
Date: Thu Jan 14 10:28:47 2010
New Revision: 155890
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155890
Log:
2010-01-14 Andrey Belevantsev a...@ispras.ru
--- Comment #10 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 10:38
---
Subject: Bug 42245
Author: amonakov
Date: Thu Jan 14 10:38:14 2010
New Revision: 155891
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155891
Log:
Add tests missing from previous commit.
PR middle
--- Comment #6 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 10:40
---
Subject: Bug 39453
Author: amonakov
Date: Thu Jan 14 10:40:19 2010
New Revision: 155892
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155892
Log:
2010-01-14 Alexander Monakov amona...@ispras.ru
--- Comment #5 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 10:40
---
Subject: Bug 42246
Author: amonakov
Date: Thu Jan 14 10:40:19 2010
New Revision: 155892
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155892
Log:
2010-01-14 Alexander Monakov amona...@ispras.ru
--- Comment #11 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 10:41
---
Fixed by revision 155890
--
amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 10:44
---
Fixed by revision 155892
--
amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 10:47
---
Subject: Bug 42294
Author: amonakov
Date: Thu Jan 14 10:46:57 2010
New Revision: 155893
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155893
Log:
2010-01-14 Alexander Monakov amona...@ispras.ru
--- Comment #5 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-25 17:06
---
We fail to find number of iterations after rewriting reductions out of SSA.
Before graphite pass, IR looks like (for the previous testcase, pr42771.c):
bb 9:
# j_26 = PHI j_20(10)
bb 10:
# j_33 = PHI j_26(9
--- Comment #10 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-10 18:26
---
(In reply to comment #9)
Fixed as described in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-02/msg00436.html
I don't see how this patch makes simple_iv call from number_of_iterations_exit
return true for j_20
--- Comment #2 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-10 18:41
---
Confirming. Reproducible on amd64-linux.
This appears to be a bug in CLooG. Disable CLooG optimizations on graphite
branch fixes the bug. The problem is that CLooG generates wrong bounds for
parts of strip
--- Comment #3 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 14:28
---
(In reply to comment #2)
Confirming. Reproducible on amd64-linux.
This appears to be a bug in CLooG. Disable CLooG optimizations on graphite
branch fixes the bug. The problem is that CLooG generates wrong
--- Comment #1 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-12 15:45
---
Confirmed. GCC simply emits repz cmpsb. There was even an e-mail with
benchmark results and a patch (never applied):
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg02129.html
--
amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-16 17:43
---
(In reply to comment #6)
Looks like this has been fixed. We do generate good code:
fred:
li 0,100
mtctr 0
.L2:
sthu 3,2(4)
bdnz .L2
blr
.size fred, .-fred
--- Comment #6 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-17 16:32
---
Handle ADDR_EXPR in SCEV
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-02/msg00666.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41998
-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43174
--- Comment #4 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-28 22:01
---
Confirmed.
The first invocation of get_computation_aff fails with ustep == (long) j, cstep
== (unsigned long) j: constant_multiple_of (ustep, cstep, rat) returns false
(j is int, STRIP_NOPS ({u,c}step) preserves
--- Comment #1 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 17:43
---
Created an attachment (id=20001)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20001action=view)
Simplify increments in IVopts using final values of inner loop IVs
A quick dirty attempt to implement
--- Comment #6 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-03 13:06
---
Not a regression, off-by-one error in reverse iteration case is since day one.
Patch:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-loop-distribution.c b/gcc/tree-loop-distribution.c
index 13ac7ea..110abdc 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-loop
--- Comment #7 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-03 13:38
---
(In reply to comment #6)
This fixes the -O[123] miscompilations. -Os is slightly harder to fix, since
we
use wrong number of iterations (cond bb is executed 11 times, latch bb with
assignment 10 times).
I
--- Comment #8 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-09 16:55
---
Given the fact that loop distribution only works for two-bb loops, I think the
fix is to simply take number of latch executions when the stmt is in the latch.
diff --git a/gcc/tree-loop-distribution.c b/gcc/tree
--- Comment #9 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 12:54
---
Subject: Bug 43236
Author: amonakov
Date: Wed Mar 10 12:53:51 2010
New Revision: 157339
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=157339
Log:
PR tree-optimization/43236
* tree-loop
--- Comment #10 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-10 12:57
---
Both issues are fixed with above commit.
--
amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-profile
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43341
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43355
--- Comment #28 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-16 15:26
---
To provide an update of the situation on 4.5 trunk:
AFAIK the situation has been generally improved with Zdenek's second commit (in
comment #23) and auto-inc-dec improvements in 4.5. However, on the particular
--- Comment #1 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-18 11:30
---
Confirming. 4.5 trunk needs lots of memory in PRE.
--
amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-18 18:13
---
Graphite is able to split the loop, but then the vectorizer punts anyway:
gcc -O3 -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=7 -fgraphite-identity -S t.c
t.c:11: note: not vectorized: number of iterations cannot be computed.
t.c
--- Comment #2 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 17:10
---
Thanks for the analysis.
This is reproducible on trunk with -O2 -fsel-sched-pipelining
-fselective-scheduling2 (with -O3, pressure-aware loop invariant motion
slightly changes the code, and it's not possible
--- Comment #4 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-20 14:49
---
A small testcase to illustrate the problem with volatile fields.
//---8---
struct vv {volatile long a, b;} vv1, vv2;
int foo()
{
vv1 = vv2;
}
//---8---
gcc/cc1 -O2 -frename-registers -fschedule-insns2 vol.c
--- Comment #1 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-21 16:43
---
Created an attachment (id=20455)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20455action=view)
proposed patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43341
--- Comment #7 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-21 16:45
---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 43341 ***
--
amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-21 16:45
---
*** Bug 43825 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-21 16:48
---
Taras, to avoid triggering the problem from firefox you can search for the file
(as I remember there is only one in xulrunner) with #pragma pack(1) and does
not reset it, and add #pragma pack() in the end
--- Comment #3 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-21 16:54
---
(In reply to comment #1)
Created an attachment (id=20455)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20455action=view) [edit]
proposed patch
GCC generates gcov structures at runtime, and #pragma pack
--- Comment #19 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-28 15:15
---
(In reply to comment #18)
3) for the same reason you can also drop the + 1 in computing the allocation
size which is currently (ubound - lbound + 1) * 4
Sorry, but isn't +1 needed because bounds are inclusive
--- Comment #1 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-13 14:46
---
r...@matylda1: /mnt/data/kasparek# LC_ALL=C gcc -o test.o test-10356.c
cc1: error: test-10356.c: Value too large for defined data type
The first this I need to help with is how to
check if the code
--- Comment #1 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-31 14:23
---
Yes, it's a bug in 1.cc that was fixed for 4.6.
--
amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-07 09:54
---
(In reply to comment #15)
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] RTL loop
unrolling causes FAIL: gcc.dg/pr39794.c
I am not sure what you mean -- I may be misunderstanding how rtl alias
analysis
works
--- Comment #9 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-20 08:25
---
It's probably worth noting that the disambiguated MEMs are of different widths:
load from (mem/c/i:DI (reg/f:DI 14 r14 [351]) [2 t+8 S8 A64])
store to (mem/s/j/c:SI (reg/f:DI 15 r15 [343]) [2 t+4 S4 A32
--- Comment #13 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-20 14:13
---
(In reply to comment #10)
Re. comment 9: Well, the order of *this* store and *this* load is the
difference between the test case failing or passing. So I do not think the
problem is between this load
--- Comment #17 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 08:32
---
(In reply to comment #16)
OK, I think I finally understand what Alexander tried to explain, and I've
annotated the code. Alexander, does this look right to you?
Yes, thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #21 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 10:07
---
(In reply to comment #20)
(Even sel-sched apparently does not use cselib, that's surprising!)
Offtopic: yes, using cselib in sel-sched is not quite straightforward, since we
need it to work on arbitrary regions
--- Comment #22 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 10:12
---
It looks like patch from comment #16 should fix the problem, but was not
reviewed and/or applied.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644
--- Comment #25 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 12:00
---
(In reply to comment #23)
The patch from comment #16 only fixes the symptom, and only on ARM. It is not
a
proper fix for the generic problem that is apparently also visible on POWER.
PR30282 audit trail
--- Comment #8 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-06 08:57
---
Subject: Bug 44919
Author: amonakov
Date: Mon Sep 6 08:56:43 2010
New Revision: 163904
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163904
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/44919
* sel-sched.c
--- Comment #9 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-06 09:00
---
(In reply to comment #7)
Any progress with the copyright assignment?
The copyright assignment is renewed, and I have committed the patch to the
current development branch on Andrey's behalf
--- Comment #11 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-12 20:34
---
Subject: Bug 44919
Author: amonakov
Date: Sun Sep 12 20:34:26 2010
New Revision: 164234
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164234
Log:
Backport from mainline
2010-09-06 Andrey
--- Comment #12 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-12 20:36
---
Subject: Bug 44919
Author: amonakov
Date: Sun Sep 12 20:35:53 2010
New Revision: 164235
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=164235
Log:
Backport from mainline
2010-09-06 Andrey
--- Comment #13 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-12 20:38
---
Fixed on release branches with above commits.
--
amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 16:53
---
Confirmed. Not related to PR43949 since selective scheduling does not use
cselib. The miscompilation seems to come from RTL aliasing: sel-sched lifts a
load that references stack via a general-purpose register
77 matches
Mail list logo
